I just lolled

[Ezteq]

stonewall are making a call to gays to boycott heinz.
ffs. how am i gonna survive without their ketchup? everything else is shit.

i'd boycott heinz on the principal of it but i dont use any of their products

i thought the advert was ok, i mean it wasnt brilliant but it was quite funny, i cant really see how that kiss would offend anyone, and if it does then they'd better not go to france, italy or the middle east where its common for guys to kiss eachother... isnt there an advert where a woman pecks another one in greeting?

people who are offended by this offend me, who do i write to to get them banned?

 

[Chronictank]

i'd boycott heinz on the principal of it but i dont use any of their products

so basically you (and the ones boycotting) are just as bad as those complaining

You are no more tolerant of their opinions as they are of yours,
glass houses etc..

 

[Ezteq]

so basically you (and the ones boycotting) are just as bad as those complaining

You are no more tolerant of their opinions as they are of yours,
glass houses etc..

eh?

how is pointing out that a petty arguement is petty the same as making the petty argument in the first place?

if no one stands up to these power hungry freedom nazis we'll be up to out arses in rules and regulations telling us that perfectly acceptable basic human behaviour and things meant in good humour are not to be tolerated, the voice of the few will come to represent the many (who in actual fact disagree with the few but are unwilling to make their own voices heard for fear of being called "just as bad") while unnecessary censorship of everything from conversation to childrens books to religious belief runs riot and the whole country will become a soul less state that is governed by the people who are, in actual fact more guilty of crushing the country than any pedophile or terrorist...


*shakes head*

fucking hell, i went political then, sorry guys.

 

[Chronictank]

eh?

how is pointing out that a petty arguement is petty the same as making the petty argument in the first place?

.

yet that has nothing to do with heinz whatsoever.. They recieved enough complaints (no doubt they have a number which has to be reached) to pull the add. There is no morality involved at all so your boycott prooves nothing other than the same narrow minded thinking you say you are against

Thus the only reason for the boycott is that you (plural) did not get your (again plural) way

 

[Iceforge]

so basically you (and the ones boycotting) are just as bad as those complaining

You are no more tolerant of their opinions as they are of yours,
glass houses etc..

So people who defended black people from racism was just as bad as those who lynched black people?

And no, I am no tolerant of their opinions. You don't fucking have to be tolerant of opinions. You have to tolerate peoples natures (being gay, being black/white/asian/whatever), because everything else is stupid and judgemental, but being against opinions is fine.

And no, I still agree with Voltaire "I might not agree with what you are saying, but I will die to defend your right to say it", but the fact that I think that even the most dumbfucked racist should be allowed to voice his opinion and say that "those dumb ******s can fuck off to africa" or whatever his narrowminded ass can think off, doesn't mean I have to stand like coward and be passive if the system starts doing what he says because he represents a vocal majority.
Being silent and watching passively as discrimination happens, like censoring this ad due to a gay kiss, is just as bad as censoring it and being a racist narrowminded fuck, because YOU give them the power by accepting that they have it.

Accepting other peoples opinions and being tolerant of them having that opinion AND then being a coward that is too scared to stand up for his/her own opinion is two entirely seperate things.

Try and sound wise all you want with your 1 lines of stolen wisdom, but when applied wrong, it just shows you as shallow and a coward

 

[old.Tohtori]

So people who defended black people from racism was just as bad as those who lynched black people?

Not at all the same thing.

And i have to say, even if i agree with "even morons should have their opinion" you calling anyone a coward who doesn't stand up to racism, is moronic/intolerant/ignorant/whatnot too.

If people don't care enough to say "you naughty nazi", they shouldn't have to just 'cause "racism bad". Nor should they feed the poor or give a f*ck about dying children.


And again as can be seen from EQs(more from others) posts, people only complain about "freedom nazism" when it doesn't harm their way of life.

 

[Chronictank]

So people who defended black people from racism was just as bad as those who lynched black people?

And no, I am no tolerant of their opinions. You don't fucking have to be tolerant of opinions. You have to tolerate peoples natures (being gay, being black/white/asian/whatever), because everything else is stupid and judgemental, but being against opinions is fine.

And no, I still agree with Voltaire "I might not agree with what you are saying, but I will die to defend your right to say it", but the fact that I think that even the most dumbfucked racist should be allowed to voice his opinion and say that "those dumb ******s can fuck off to africa" or whatever his narrowminded ass can think off, doesn't mean I have to stand like coward and be passive if the system starts doing what he says because he represents a vocal majority.
Being silent and watching passively as discrimination happens, like censoring this ad due to a gay kiss, is just as bad as censoring it and being a racist narrowminded fuck, because YOU give them the power by accepting that they have it.

Accepting other peoples opinions and being tolerant of them having that opinion AND then being a coward that is too scared to stand up for his/her own opinion is two entirely seperate things.

Try and sound wise all you want with your 1 lines of stolen wisdom, but when applied wrong, it just shows you as shallow and a coward

the whole paragraph is nothing to do with this case at all......
You can be as self righteous as you like, and try and divert the thread onto another tangent but the fact of the matter is

sending them a complaint about the advert being pulled = ok
boycotting heinz for doing the right thing according to their rules and regulations = moronic

I just find it laughable (not aimed at you iceforge) how many hyprocrits we have on this forum preaching freedom of speech and tolerance when it suites them and then doing the exact opposite in other threads.

I am no angel by any means before someone says it, but at least (i try to be anyway) i am consistent

 

[Lamp]

Ever wondered what makes Heinz products so tasty ?

 

[Ezteq]

i honestly dont think im a hippocrite simply because i dislike people for bowing to the pressures of the few narrow minded people who shout the loudest. i have more respect for people who stand for what they believe in than those who stand for what others wont tollerate, i think its a wee bit unfair to be calling me a hippocrite.

i defend people who are not doing anything wrong (two blokes kissing is not wrong, you may not like it but its not wrong) someone being racist or abusive can not be lumped in with the same "i have my right to do whatever i like freedom blah blah whatever"

i really dont get why people feel its ok to go Ezbashing, i mean its not like i go about calling you hippocritical Oo

 

[Iceforge]

Not at all the same thing.

And i have to say, even if i agree with "even morons should have their opinion" you calling anyone a coward who doesn't stand up to racism, is moronic/intolerant/ignorant/whatnot too.

If people don't care enough to say "you naughty nazi", they shouldn't have to just 'cause "racism bad". Nor should they feed the poor or give a f*ck about dying children.


And again as can be seen from EQs(more from others) posts, people only complain about "freedom nazism" when it doesn't harm their way of life.

You missed the point, Old.Tohtori.
If a nazi/racist/whatever says their opinion publicly, sure, you can choose not to care enough to say anything about it.
But if they start making the decisions, starts being the ones who DECIDES what happens, and being the ones in power/charge, then if you still oppose them, but choose to be silent and just let them decide, then that is an error on your behalf.
Just like when people get attacked on public streets and nobody interfers or even calls the police. Anybody who witness someone else being attacked and then doesn't even bother to call the police is also a criminal, because they AIDED the attacker by not doing their public duty to alarm the police.
If you let decisions be made based on principles, such a discrimination against gays, and don't oppose that things was changed and decided based upon such discriminating principles (such as 2 men kissing on TV being inappropriate, but man kissing women is fine) then you are supporting it. It doesn't help to sit around silently on your ass and say "well, not me who is making that decision, so it is not my fault", because it is the silent majority that is the reason so much is completely fucked up sometimes.
As it was put in the Boondock Saints (paraphrased) one of the greatests evils in this world is the indifference of good men.

the whole paragraph is nothing to do with this case at all......

So it seems both you and Old.Tohtori read the first paragraph of my post and saw that I used an example with slavery and then decided not to bother enough to understand the point of the post.

Now, take my post, DONT READ THE FIRST LINE OF IT, and you'll see that it has EVERYTHING to do with this topic.

And why is boycotting them moronic?
Your only argument for that was that the two camps was as crazy as each other, which I did argument against, but perhaps you failed to understand it due to the first line of my post?

 

[Chronictank]

You missed the point, Old.Tohtori.
If a nazi/racist/whatever says their opinion publicly, sure, you can choose not to care enough to say anything about it.
But if they start making the decisions, starts being the ones who DECIDES what happens, and being the ones in power/charge, then if you still oppose them, but choose to be silent and just let them decide, then that is an error on your behalf.

So it seems both you and Old.Tohtori read the first paragraph of my post and saw that I used an example with slavery and then decided not to bother enough to understand the point of the post.

Now, take my post, DONT READ THE FIRST LINE OF IT, and you'll see that it has EVERYTHING to do with this topic.

And why is boycotting them moronic?
Your only argument for that was that the two camps was as crazy as each other, which I did argument against, but perhaps you failed to understand it due to the first line of my post?

i read all of it, and it didnt have any relevance to the argument, as i have explained twice

you want Heinz to break their own regulations because they dont follow YOUR opinon, the subject matter has nothing to do with it
If they recieve a certain number of complaints irrespective of content the add gets pulled

 

[Iceforge]

i read all of it, and it didnt have any relevance to the argument, as i have explained twice

you want Heinz to break their own regulations because they dont follow YOUR opinon, the subject matter has nothing to do with it
If they recieve a certain number of complaints irrespective of content the add gets pulled

So to summarize, you think that just because Heinz is following their own pre-set rules, then their actions are not their responsibility?
And that we, as consumers and people with brains, are not obliged to take their actions into consideration, because oh no, they did it from a preset regulations that always apply, so it is not really their fault.
Clue train; Heinz made the regulations(to pull back ad's with complains), Heinz choose to do the actions (pulling it back) and thusly Heinz will have to deal with the consequences of their actions (possible boycot by those who find their actions repulsive).
Whats so hypocritical of me complaining about them pulling the ad back and expressing how extreme offended I am by that action, but it is quite alright for that racist dumbwit that complained about the gay kiss in the first place?
What is EXCATLY the hypocritical part of it? Come on, you said it was, but you have yet to point out WHY it is hypocritical. I never said people should not be allowed to complain about the ad. I am saying that Heinz should be smart enough to know not to listen to complaint that are about them featuring Gays.
Seriously, what if the ad had featured a black man and got loads of complains by white racists about there being a black man on their TV, with a job, and now they had to explain their kids about how black men also sometimes got jobs while they had tried to tell them that black men was lazy bastards who hated to work:
Should Heinz then pull back the ad, because their regulations tell them to pull back ad's due to complains, or should they be morally responsible enough to say "fuck you racist assholes" to those complaining and keep running the ad?

Hope the point is finally going to come across. It has nothing to do with hypocrazy, it has EVERYTHING to do with demanding companies to have social responsiblility and be ready to take the consequences when they do horrible judgemental discriminating actions.

 

[old.Tohtori]

You missed the point, Old.Tohtori.
If a nazi/racist/whatever says their opinion publicly, sure, you can choose not to care enough to say anything about it.
But if they start making the decisions, starts being the ones who DECIDES what happens, and being the ones in power/charge, then if you still oppose them, but choose to be silent and just let them decide, then that is an error on your behalf.
Just like when people get attacked on public streets and nobody interfers or even calls the police. Anybody who witness someone else being attacked and then doesn't even bother to call the police is also a criminal, because they AIDED the attacker by not doing their public duty to alarm the police.
If you let decisions be made based on principles, such a discrimination against gays, and don't oppose that things was changed and decided based upon such discriminating principles (such as 2 men kissing on TV being inappropriate, but man kissing women is fine) then you are supporting it. It doesn't help to sit around silently on your ass and say "well, not me who is making that decision, so it is not my fault", because it is the silent majority that is the reason so much is completely fucked up sometimes.
As it was put in the Boondock Saints (paraphrased) one of the greatests evils in this world is the indifference of good men.

I understood your post fine and dandy. How could i NOT read your whole post and comment on somthing you said in the middle of it?

Racism and whatnot had nothing to do with my answer. My answer and rebuttal towards you was this, hope YOU understand it:

If i don't oppose something out loud, or even oppose it, or even if i don't call the police on a mugging, it DOESN'T mean i accept it.

Indifference doesn't mean acceptance.

Because on that principle, i could say that you are gay for not opposing gay marriage.

It's not true, it's moronic and the only thing you can judge someone on is what they do take a stance in.

If i say i don't care for kids, you can oppose me, but you CAN'T oppose me for not saying one way or the other.

Should Heinz then pull back the ad, because their regulations tell them to pull back ad's due to complains, or should they be morally responsible enough to say "fuck you racist assholes" to those complaining and keep running the ad?

As said, this is not my problem, this is Heinzs' problem. Me being against it or not, wouldn't change my stance on racism and if i do or don't accept it.

And also, just to add, what's racist about being against gays? Intolerance, sure, but racist?

And you have to think about the bigger picture; it's the people who change the adds, not Heinz. Heinz do what people say, because people buy Heinz, and if racist biggoted narrowminded people buy their mayo more, then they'll put a f*cking white hoodie on the jar. It's a company, not a political party.

 

[Levin]

And also, just to add, what's racist about being against gays? Intolerance, sure, but racist?

You quoted half of his example, where he asked what you'd have thought if it was about black men and white racists complaining.

Seriously guys. I think we can all agree that everyone is allowed an opinion, right?

So, if someone is of the opinion that a company's action isn't to their tastes, whatever those actions may be and whyever they were taken - why is it hypocritical to boycott the company? Up to them, isn't it? What did they say beforehand to make a boycott hypocritical?

Personally I will continue eating Heinz ketchup because it tastes the best, but I see no reason to morally judge people who decide not to.

 

[old.Tohtori]

You quoted half of his example, where he asked what you'd have thought if it was about black men and white racists complaining.

Seriously guys. I think we can all agree that everyone is allowed an opinion, right?

So, if someone is of the opinion that a company's action isn't to their tastes, whatever those actions may be and whyever they were taken - why is it hypocritical to boycott the company? Up to them, isn't it? What did they say beforehand to make a boycott hypocritical?

Personally I will continue eating Heinz ketchup because it tastes the best, but I see no reason to morally judge people who decide not to.

I'm not saying one should/shouldn't morally be against heinz.

Don't put me in "same camp" as Chronic.

I'm against OTHER points of Iceforges opinions.

Clear? Cool? Solid.

I quoted exactly what i commented on that is relevant to what i'm against in Iceforges opinions.

In other words, i'm against saying someone is responsible or somehow "pro-xxx" if they don't do something about it or ignore it.


Also on the whol hoobla about "heinz being against gays for pulling the add", well, honestly...the add wasn't homofilled and taking it out wasn't homophobic. It's not like one kiss is the same as decapitating blacks. Just business as usual. It's just a dunghill out of a doggiepoo really.

 

[Cromcruaich]

Yes, heinz pulling an advert on people's request is the important human rights issue of the week. jesus wept.

 

[Chronictank]

So to summarize, you think that just because Heinz is following their own pre-set rules, then their actions are not their responsibility?
And that we, as consumers and people with brains, are not obliged to take their actions into consideration, because oh no, they did it from a preset regulations that always apply, so it is not really their fault.
Clue train; Heinz made the regulations(to pull back ad's with complains), Heinz choose to do the actions (pulling it back) and thusly Heinz will have to deal with the consequences of their actions (possible boycot by those who find their actions repulsive).

Quote me where i said there shouldnt be any responce to it, i didnt say anything at all along those lines. There is a significant difference between a sensible responce (sending a complaint explaining your position) and a ridiculous one (boycotting heinz)
The same way people going around burning danish flags and rioting was a ridiculous responce to those cartoons. In fact i already explained this, ableit in a crude manner

sending them a complaint about the advert being pulled = ok
boycotting heinz for doing the right thing according to their rules and regulations = moronic

For all you know the complaints may result in the add being moved after the 6 o clock mark so that kids dont see it.

Whats so hypocritical of me complaining about them pulling the ad back and expressing how extreme offended I am by that action, but it is quite alright for that racist dumbwit that complained about the gay kiss in the first place?[

What is EXCATLY the hypocritical part of it?

Come on, you said it was, but you have yet to point out WHY it is hypocritical.

In your own words "Now, take my post, DONT READ THE FIRST LINE OF IT, and you'll see"

I just find it laughable (not aimed at you iceforge) how many hyprocrits we have on this forum preaching freedom of speech and tolerance when it suites them and then doing the exact opposite in other threads.

People are perfectly entitled to their opinion, if they think homophobic relations are not something they want kids exposed to until they want to teach such things themselves when they deem it fit.
They aren't given this choice if the adds are run (as they were run in prime time, before 6), but you are given the choice to view the ad off the tv as it is freely available all over the internet

I never said people should not be allowed to complain about the ad. I am saying that Heinz should be smart enough to know not to listen to complaint that are about them featuring Gays.

Why should they? It is far more responsible not to run something because it offends x population than it is to keep it running
Official press releases

PITTSBURGH--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Heinz has confirmed that it withdrew a UK TV commercial for Deli Mayo last week because it was not in accordance with Heinz’s long-standing corporate policy of respecting everyone’s rights and values.

“Heinz pulled the ad in the UK because our consumer research showed that it failed in its attempt to be humorous and offended people on all sides,” said Michael Mullen, Director of Global Corporate Affairs for Heinz.

“Heinz apologizes for its misplaced attempt at humor and we accept that this ad was not in accordance with our long-standing corporate policy of respecting everyone’s rights and values,” Mullen said.

Seriously, what if the ad had featured a black man and got loads of complains by white racists about there being a black man on their TV, with a job, and now they had to explain their kids about how black men also sometimes got jobs while they had tried to tell them that black men was lazy bastards who hated to work:
Should Heinz then pull back the ad, because their regulations tell them to pull back ad's due to complains, or should they be morally responsible enough to say "fuck you racist assholes" to those complaining and keep running the ad?

yes they should, if enough of the target audience complain it should be pulled in accordance to their company policy. Irresepctive of your view or if it is right or wrong if the people the add is aimed at do not see the humour or find it offensive it should be removed. End of the day no add is better than offending the target audience you are trying to sell products to

I would say it is far MORE irresponsible to keep running the add even though it offends a significant number of your audience

Hope the point is finally going to come across. It has nothing to do with hypocrazy, it has EVERYTHING to do with demanding companies to have social responsiblility and be ready to take the consequences when they do horrible judgemental discriminating actions.

Its not a judgemental or discrimination action by definiton though is it, as it would apply to any advert..
If enough people complained about 2 hetrosexual's kissing the same would happen but we would not have this discussion at all and it would not be controversial either, food for thought (see what i did there ).

@Ez, there is no "ezbashing" at all i treat everyone the same

 

[Ezteq]

holy cow thats a lot of quoting lol

/votes to make chronic "quotemaster general" the skill needs to be recognised imo.

anyhoo, on the topic of finding things offensive, is it just me or does anyone else find the whole baby product advert thing where people kiss babies arses more than a little puke inducing?

personally i'd like to see that banned, i mean whats the difference between seeing someone plant a kiss on an arse (just cos its a baby arse doesnt make it "cute" tbh) and seeing someone plant a kiss on another fella? and if you want to get all picky about it what about all the child abuse laws etc where you get arrested for taking a photo of your baby in the bath but they can show babyarse kissing on tv?

there was something B2 told me about these people getting a picture put on a guys 18th birthday cake and it was of him when he was a baby and he was in the nud, tesco called the police on them Oo

slight over reaction much?

 

[Iceforge]

I understood your post fine and dandy. How could i NOT read your whole post and comment on somthing you said in the middle of it?

Racism and whatnot had nothing to do with my answer. My answer and rebuttal towards you was this, hope YOU understand it:

If i don't oppose something out loud, or even oppose it, or even if i don't call the police on a mugging, it DOESN'T mean i accept it.

Indifference doesn't mean acceptance.

Because on that principle, i could say that you are gay for not opposing gay marriage.

It's not true, it's moronic and the only thing you can judge someone on is what they do take a stance in.

If i say i don't care for kids, you can oppose me, but you CAN'T oppose me for not saying one way or the other.



As said, this is not my problem, this is Heinzs' problem. Me being against it or not, wouldn't change my stance on racism and if i do or don't accept it.

And also, just to add, what's racist about being against gays? Intolerance, sure, but racist?

And you have to think about the bigger picture; it's the people who change the adds, not Heinz. Heinz do what people say, because people buy Heinz, and if racist biggoted narrowminded people buy their mayo more, then they'll put a f*cking white hoodie on the jar. It's a company, not a political party.

Not entirely the same.

You can be for or against Gay Marriage. If you are pro Gay Marriage and Gay marriage gets banned/made illegal, I'd expect you to voice your opinion against it being made illegal (unless that was punishable by law, then I might understand you choosing to be silent)
Same, if you are against Gay Marriage, and Gay marriage is made legal where you'd like, I'd also expect you to voice your opinion against it being legal (unless, again, that was punishable by law)

"But Heinz is not the state/country/making laws!!!"
True, entirely true, but they are a company operating on an international capitalistic market and as such, we the consumers do not have the power to vote about their decisions, but we have our chance to voice our opinion based upon it, like boycotting their products.

"Being against Gay's is not racism!"
Right, fine, wrong word, but I still think my point came across?

But maybe we are different in world views, Old.Tohtori, see, if I find out that someone I know is racist/gaybasher (lack of better word) I am so repulsed by that person I simply don't deal with them in any way. Be in friends, family or business contacts (including companies from which you shop products) until they change their ways, because while ironic as it may be, I view people like that as lower forms of life (which would mean that I am prejudgemental towards people who are prejudgemental based on unchangeable human traits, now ain't that a kicker)

 

[old.Tohtori]

"Being against Gay's is not racism!"
Right, fine, wrong word, but I still think my point came across?

But maybe we are different in world views, Old.Tohtori, see, if I find out that someone I know is racist/gaybasher (lack of better word) I am so repulsed by that person I simply don't deal with them in any way. Be in friends, family or business contacts (including companies from which you shop products) until they change their ways, because while ironic as it may be, I view people like that as lower forms of life (which would mean that I am prejudgemental towards people who are prejudgemental based on unchangeable human traits, now ain't that a kicker)

Glad you agree on your choice of words

Anyhoo, yes, i'm fine in dealing with racists. They can be as racist as they want, as log as they don't start the third reicht while i'm there. As long as i don't get in trouble by their actions, do what they will, and let those who are affected by racism deal with it.

As they often do.

I don't judge a person by a single trait, i judge on "do i want to be here" factor and if not, i move. Or, if i don't stand someone, but stands their friends in equal or more amount of positive, to negate the negative effect, i stay.

But, this is besides the point i made: I don't find "not-judging someone" as same as "being the one doing".

 

[Iceforge]

Boils down to me and some others disagreeing.

I think just voicing your opinion to Heinz is beyond stupid, because they are a company and if you don't hurt their income, you don't hurt them at all, simple as that. Just writting to them and saying I think it is offensive that they pulled the ad (which I have done) and then not boycotting them is what I would call hypocritical, because then I would be saying that "I don't like you!" and then "here, take my money for free! yes yes! take it!" which is beyond stupidity.

I am also chocked how some people can still think that it would be alright to censor stuff based on skin colour, sexual orientation and other such things which you cannot change in the human nature. It sickens me deep down that some people find that commercial offensive and to be honest, I am disappointed in those here who said it was alright to pull it back, my opinion of you has taken a severe hit.

I might have come off a bit hard when i said just being passive and allowing intolerant people to be in charge of decisions is just as bad as being intolerant, but it is still a huge part of the problem, because it is that big group of silent passive people which makes the majority, and whatever or not you want to free yourself of guilt and deny your involvement with it, being passive about something makes your partially responsible for it.
Ignoring gay's basic human rights being violated AIDS the one violating the rights of the gays, because by ignoring it, you are saying it is not important, and the rights of every person on this planet is important. What if it was you yourself that belonged to a group that had their rights violated repeatedly and the majority was just looking on at it and going "hmm, no big deal!", then i doubt you would find it so miniscule and unimportant.

And I know it is a Heinz commercial, and it won't really influence much in the world, just like me not buying their products (and others, I hope) won't change the facts that many people starve to death and such around the world, which means it is probarly not important human rights issue of the week, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't matter at all.

But sure, stick to being passive and cowardly about other people's rights being violated and claim not to have any guilt by being passive and doing nothing (because buying another ketchup would be OHHH SO HARD FOR YOU!), but then if you ever get your own rights violated, don't be surprised by how the majority around you might say "oh, thats too bad" or that "we don't agree with those who did this towards you" and then still failing to do anything, because "it doesn't really matter and it is not their fault", and in fact start calling those who do help you for hypocrits for not giving money to those who offended and violated your rights.

 

[old.Tohtori]

You're taking a HUUUGE assume cake piece there, and eating it too.

You're essentially calling me a coward, responsible for gay bashing, non-caring of human rights etc because...listen carefully now...i don't "make heinz pay" for pulling a man-man kiss from the TV.

Seriously.

And there's a difference in not giving a damn and "being a coward and claiming no guilt".

If you judge me because of this, and my persona takes a "hit" because of THIS...you're just as bad as the racist intolerant people, just from a different pie chart.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Although i admit i assume you're still putting me in the same group of "those people" as i don't think like you.

Part of the problem is that you can't "simply not care" about issues these days.

"Pick your side!" "With or against us!" "Jelly or peanut butter!"

You know?

What happened to good old "i don't give a damn"?

 

[CorNokZ]

What happened to good old "i don't give a damn"?

Exactly..

I got asked at school once "Anders, what is your oppinion about this?"(was about some political issue in the middle east) and I replied something like "Do I need an oppinion on this specific issue, because I don't..?"

The teacher got pissed and thought I was trying to be a smartass, when I really just didn't care about some old religious problem far far away from me..

 

[Chronictank]

Boils down to me and some others disagreeing.

I think just voicing your opinion to Heinz is beyond stupid, because they are a company and if you don't hurt their income, you don't hurt them at all, simple as that.

Yet writing to them got the ad pulled in the first place, beginning to see the folly of your own statement?

Just writting to them and saying I think it is offensive that they pulled the ad (which I have done) and then not boycotting them is what I would call hypocritical, because then I would be saying that "I don't like you!" and then "here, take my money for free! yes yes! take it!" which is beyond stupidity.

Yet heinz has done nothing to offend you, the people who complained have..
Heinz simply played it safe in accordance to their own regulations,
so in reality you are offended they didnt "make a stand" against their own company policy, alienating a obviously significant number of their customers. Even though this was, in all likelyhood was originaly a marketing ploy to get themselves in the paper.
You also seem to think that everyone who complained is homophobic, another assumption which is more than likely incorrect for a number of the complaints. There is a significant difference between homophobia and controlling what your children see, and how you would like to raise them.

I am also chocked how some people can still think that it would be alright to censor stuff based on skin colour, sexual orientation and other such things which you cannot change in the human nature.

Again instead of understanding you take things out of context
This ignoring the fact that we dont know how homosexuality occurs (afaik).
If it is learned then it is not human nature and you are not born with it, if it is genetic then your statement may hold true (arguments to and againts its classification also aside we had a long post about this before )
So again it is not as clear cut as you would like to pretend, if indeed it is learned then it is a lifestyle choice and cannot be put into the same context as skin colour, but instead in the same boat as religion, democracy etc...

It sickens me deep down that some people find that commercial offensive and to be honest, I am disappointed in those here who said it was alright to pull it back, my opinion of you has taken a severe hit.

Quite frankly i couldnt care less, if you are unwilling to see 2 sides of a argument (indicated by your repeated insults) there is little or no point in this discussion.
The ad was not some racial/sexual/bigotted responce, it was a business decision (and the right one imo). They are here to make money, if you believe this is not the case then you are blind as this is the purpose of most corporate bodies.

But sure, stick to being passive and cowardly about other people's rights being violated and claim not to have any guilt by being passive and doing nothing (because buying another ketchup would be OHHH SO HARD FOR YOU!), but then if you ever get your own rights violated, don't be surprised by how the majority around you might say "oh, thats too bad" or that "we don't agree with those who did this towards you" and then still failing to do anything, because "it doesn't really matter and it is not their fault", and in fact start calling those who do help you for hypocrits for not giving money to those who offended and violated your rights.

Yet this is nothing to do with the point at hand, you are asking a company to lose profits because you dont agree with some of its consumers. Not even the company itself but the people who buy the product.

And under some self-righteous banner claiming everyone who does not see the validity of your argument are "cowards" among other things, this is not a black and white issue but you seem to think it is.
Tohorti hit the nail on the proverbial head, this "with or against us" attitude is both the cause and the problem of the vast majrotiy of conflicts in the world. And i for one will happily be called a coward if it means i am willing to comprimise and get on with people rather than instantly rise to conflict causing more problems than it solves.

 

[Iceforge]

You're taking a HUUUGE assume cake piece there, and eating it too.

You're essentially calling me a coward, responsible for gay bashing, non-caring of human rights etc because...listen carefully now...i don't "make heinz pay" for pulling a man-man kiss from the TV.

Seriously.

And there's a difference in not giving a damn and "being a coward and claiming no guilt".

If you judge me because of this, and my persona takes a "hit" because of THIS...you're just as bad as the racist intolerant people, just from a different pie chart.

Hey, it's fine that you say that you personally don't think it sanctions a big enough right violation that you want to do anything. Thats fine. Was more targetting that it was being said that it was hypocritical of me and others to boycot Heinz.
I can agree that this specific incident might not sanction for everybody to react, was more trying to be general, some parts of my post might not have illustrated that very well due to personally being outraged at Heinz for this specific incident.

Yet writing to them got the ad pulled in the first place, beginning to see the folly of your own statement?

If the complaint to Heinz hadn't envoked fear to loss of revenue into the minds of the brains at Heinz, they would not have pulled the ad.
Complaining about them pulling the ad will have no effect until they feel that not putting it back out might endanger their revenue more than not putting it back out.
Thats how capitalism works, but if you think it is some fairy land world where just telling a company how you feel without threats of, and actual, actions that negatively influence their revenue, then keep dreaming. For companies in a capitalistic society, revenue is the allmighty aspect.

Yet heinz has done nothing to offend you, the people who complained have..

This is where we disagree and I told you several times already that just because Heinz is reacting to other people instead of actually taking the initiative does NOT free them from responsibility of their own actions.
If person A tells person B to kill person C, does B then not have a responsibility if he chooses to kill person C, just because he did it because person A said so? I know, extreme scenario, but I feel like talking to a brick wall, as I have explained this previously.

Again instead of understanding you take things out of context
This ignoring the fact that we dont know how homosexuality occurs (afaik).
If it is learned then it is not human nature and you are not born with it, if it is genetic then your statement may hold true (arguments to and againts its classification also aside we had a long post about this before )
So again it is not as clear cut as you would like to pretend, if indeed it is learned then it is a lifestyle choice and cannot be put into the same context as skin colour, but instead in the same boat as religion, democracy etc...

We do know that homosexuality is a natural thing, despite some religious fanatics want to claim otherwise.
Really, you shouldn't let yourself be too blinded by propaganda; Religious people claiming there is a controversy/lack of knowledge general means they have choosen to ignore it.
Let me put it simple to you; Think about this:
Racial difference/Skin colour like difference is found in many species of animals
Gay orientation is found in many species of animals
Religion is solely a human concept
Politics is solely a human concept
Ta da. A 5 year old should be able to understand that.
Not in itself proof, but there is no real debate about whatever it is a choise or not, it is, however, debateable if it comes with the genes or is a result of very early childhood conditioning, just like physchopathy (lack correct word in english) comes from early childhood, but at any rate, you can't choose to be or not to be gay oriented sexually. Some religous brainwash gays into suppressing their urges, but you can also brainwash people into being completely a-sexual by the same principles.

May respond with more tomorrow, but running late for work! ta ta for now

 

[Chronictank]

This is where we disagree and I told you several times already that just because Heinz is reacting to other people instead of actually taking the initiative does NOT free them from responsibility of their own actions.
If person A tells person B to kill person C, does B then not have a responsibility if he chooses to kill person C, just because he did it because person A said so? I know, extreme scenario, but I feel like talking to a brick wall, as I have explained this previously.

And i have told you several times its a unrelated example because if you want to insist on using that example
Your example:
Person A tells person B to kill person C.
Person C tells person B to kill person A
Person B is forced to choose between A and C

The reality:
Person A tells person B to kill person C.
Person C tells person B to kill person A
Person B decides to do neither

We will have to agree to disagree on this point as we are just going in circles

We do know that homosexuality is a natural thing, despite some religious fanatics want to claim otherwise.
Really, you shouldn't let yourself be too blinded by propaganda; Religious people claiming there is a controversy/lack of knowledge general means they have choosen to ignore it.
Let me put it simple to you; Think about this:
Racial difference/Skin colour like difference is found in many species of animals
Gay orientation is found in many species of animals
Religion is solely a human concept
Politics is solely a human concept
Ta da. A 5 year old should be able to understand that.

All of the above has no relevance to what i posted, you simply chose to ignore what i typed and twisted it so you can continue your rant.
Let me put it simply for you, I made no reference to whether homosexuality is right or wrong, i made no reference to the validity of being gay, nor did i put forward an argument for/against it.
If you want a theological debate whether homosexuality (not bisexuality which exists in animals) is "natural", i suggest you make another thread or bump the uber long old one.

Fortunately you got back on topic afterwards, ableit in a the loosest possible definition of on topic:

Not in itself proof, but there is no real debate about whatever it is a choise or not, it is, however, debateable if it comes with the genes or is a result of very early childhood conditioning, just like physchopathy (lack correct word in english) comes from early childhood, but at any rate, you can't choose to be or not to be gay oriented sexually. Some religous brainwash gays into suppressing their urges, but you can also brainwash people into being completely a-sexual by the same principles.

Some people believe homosexuality is learned/conditioned/whatever terminology you prefer to use, but the basic premise is that you are not born with it.
The other theory is that it is genetic, thus you are born with it.
Both theories have proof behind them, and i have explained the implications of both

regardless if it is "natural", one is a lifestyle choice the other is genetic.

You are born a certain skin tone, you are born male/female, you are born of a certain race.
You are not born a religion (for sake of argument ignoring implications and beliefs), you are taught it.

If it is a lifestyle choice, it is not in the same category as race/creed/sex which you have no choice over as it is in your genes.
Whether it exists in the animal kingdom or not is of no consequence

Ta da. A 5 year old should be able to understand that.

 

[Raven]

So in summary we need a proper topic to errr debate

who cares if they pulled an advert, not as if anyone actually watches the adverts.

 

[tris-]

So in summary we need a proper topic to errr debate

who cares if they pulled an advert, not as if anyone actually watches the adverts.

its the principle though, isnt it?

there is nothing wrong with the advert, and if it offends youre beliefs turn the fucking channel over.

i can go into a library and there is books, everywhere. some books may say its ok for girls to kiss other girls and soime books say girls should not kiss other girls cos its nasty.
if the second book offends my beliefs, does it not make sense to simply not read it?
if there is an advert on tv and i dont want to watch it, shouldnt i just change the channel?
but if i watched the advert and then discovered i didnt like it, why couldnt i just simply move on. accept that no one forced me to watch it and simply change the channel next time its on?

 

[Chronictank]

its the principle though, isnt it?

there is nothing wrong with the advert, and if it offends youre beliefs turn the fucking channel over.

i can go into a library and there is books, everywhere. some books may say its ok for girls to kiss other girls and soime books say girls should not kiss other girls cos its nasty.
if the second book offends my beliefs, does it not make sense to simply not read it?
if there is an advert on tv and i dont want to watch it, shouldnt i just change the channel?
but if i watched the advert and then discovered i didnt like it, why couldnt i just simply move on. accept that no one forced me to watch it and simply change the channel next time its on?

How do you control what kids watch? the add was showing all day therefore it was unavoidable. You dont have a choice to simply switch to the other channel bar hovering over them every minuite of the day they are watching tv. Ad's are also not covered by parental controls, again the add is not able to be controlled.
So in reality your argument is flawed

You can however watch the ad on the internet if you wanted to, there is nothing stopping you finding it if you wanted to, it's not as if it has been erased from existence.
So removing it (going by the quoted train of thought) is the best option as everyone isn't forced to see it, but people who want to can find it by other means